Who really wrote John's Gospel?

[Klm]

This may seem like a stupid question, but here it is. I read both in the Introduction to The Gospel of St. John in the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition and also in a Bible study series book on St. John’s gospel and his letters that St. John the Beloved didn’t write the gospel. The reasoning didn’t make much sense to me. They (the scholars) said that the gospel couldn’t be written by just one person, that St. John was too uneducated to write such a deep gospel, and that, because it was written by “the disciple Jesus loved” that disciple couldn’t have been St. John because he wouldn’t have used such an ambiguous term in referring to himself. (Since this is gettin lenghty, I’ll try to shorten the rest.)
I’ve always - even as an evangelical - been taught that St. John wrote his gospel. There are several logical reasons for my leaning toward this conclusion, not the least of which is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who can make the most uneducated person write deeply profound things. Then there is the Sacred Tradition I read recently. To make it brief, St. Irenaeus wrote “Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia”. (quoted from Faith of the Early Fathers) Now, St. Iraneus was instructed by St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. Wouldn’t he know if St. John was the author of his own gospel? So, did the scholars overthink things and over look Tradition?
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!!!
Kris

 

[Maranatha]

According tot he Vatican II document: DEI VERBUM (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION)

5:18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)

According to The Church in History Information Center, THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS.

CHAPTER XII
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

For nearly two thousand years Christians have held that John the Apostle, eyewitness of the public life of Christ, completed this Gospel about 95 AD. Today, some people dispute this. Others accept the date but assert the author was Prester John, a non-eyewitness. The story of the alleged existence of such an individual will be discussed in Chapter XV. Here it is proposed to look at the historical and internal evidence pointing to John the Apostle being its author, and at its date.

 

[Zooey]

John wrote John’s Gospel.

“St John the Apostle and Evangelist, was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother to St James the Greater…He wrote the Gospel after the other Evangelists”…

I just love the notes in my Douay-Rheims Bible…Thank you, Bishop Richard Challoner!!!

 

[Klm]

Thank you very much! When I mentioned my findings to our RCIA director, he was stunned. It seems to me too many modern scholars look at things from the viewpoint of trying to disprove commonly held knowledge instead of confirming it. My favorite justification for their view that I found was St. John’s lack of education. As if, in the roughly 57 years between walking with Jesus and writing his gospel the poor man never learned anything! An absurd assumption regarding any human being. :whacky:
Kris

 

[Fidelis]

I suggest you find other study materials than what you are using. We Americans are unfortunately saddled with the modernistic commentary that comes with almost all editions of the New American Bible, currently the foremost approved text in the US (there are several threads about the NAB in this forum, so hopefully this thread won’t get hijacked beating that old hoss).

There are a number of less annoying resources you can avail yourself of, including the Navarre Bible Commentary series. The general editor of that series wrote a number of articles for This Rock magazine introducing each book of the Bible. Here is an appropriate excerpt from the one about John, plus a link if you want to read the whole thing:

John is the inspired author of the fourth Gospel. This is explicitly recognized by tradition and witnessed to by, among others, Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen. It is also borne out by internal evidence of the text: the author’s familiarity with Jewish customs and his policy of pointing out how the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled (the cleansing of the Temple, the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the unbelief of the Jews, the distribution of Jesus’ clothes and the casting of lots for his tunic, the piercing of his side with a lance); the vivid eyewitness quality of many of his accounts; his detailed knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem (he knows that the portico of Solomon is part of the Temple; that there was a pavement in the praetorium called Gabbatha; that the pool of Bethzatha has five porticoes and is located near the Sheep Gate); and, finally, by the wealth of detail which gives the narrative a special freshness and originality which could only come from an eyewitness.

To this should be added the fact that whereas the synoptics expressly mention John ( Matthew three times, Luke seven and Mark nine), the fourth Gospel never gives his name, and never refers to his family, except on one occasion when it mentions the sons of Zebedee (21:2). Because the author seems to hide his true identity by using the literary form of ‘he whom Jesus loved’ (13:23) and this could only refer to our Lord’s three most intimate apostles (Peter, James and John: Matt. 17:12 Mark 14:33), we can conclude by process of elimination that this disciple was John, because we know James was already dead (he died in the year 44, in the reign of Agrippa) and Peter asked this disciple a question (13:24) but Peter had also died a martyr’s death in Rome during Nero’s persecution of the Church, which began in 64.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ntg.asp

For more good resources, I recommend you visit my humble Scripture Study webpage, linked below.

 

[threej_lc]

Dude, the gospel of John was written by the beloved apostle, James the Lesser. Everyone knows that.

Seriously though, there’s a lot of off-the-wall comments made in the NAB. Others are very helpful. My basic rule of thumb is if they say something that’s out there, ignore it and rely on other sources.

The footnotes were written by followers of the modern bible scholarship, who’s first main premises is: “Everything we ever believed about the bible is completely wrong, until proven through archeological evidence otherwise.” This is directly opposed to the common sense approach of “We’re more accurate to stick to tradition until proven false.”

A prime example: In the book of Nehemiah, the bible references Nehemiah conversing with Ezra. The footnotes state that there is no historical documentation that Ezra ever met Nehemiah, and therefor this was probably just made up by the author to provide continuity between the two books. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but it really seems kind of silly to go out o your way to point out the reade that something was made up, based solely on the fact you haven’t found it documented elsewhere yet.

Sounds like an agenda to me.
Josh

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Klm:

Thank you very much! When I mentioned my findings to our RCIA director, he was stunned. It seems to me too many modern scholars look at things from the viewpoint of trying to disprove commonly held knowledge instead of confirming it. My favorite justification for their view that I found was St. John’s lack of education. As if, in the roughly 57 years between walking with Jesus and writing his gospel the poor man never learned anything! An absurd assumption regarding any human being. :whacky:
Kris

One cannot get a Doctorate for a dissertation confirming common knowledge, only for disproving - or at least questioning - it.

We have too many theologians looking for a degree and too few looking to educate God’s people.

 

[JimG]

In John’s gospel, Ch 21, beginning with verse 20, John relates an incident in which Peter asks Jesus about John. At the end, he concludes by saying: “It is this same disciple who is witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down. . .”

Apparently John thought that he wrote the Gospel of John.

 

[edrazz]

I’m really impressed by the postings on this thread. If lay Catholics can see the foolishness in some of our bible commentaries - then why can’t the bishops?

 

[Gnosis]

There are several reasons why the Gospel of John was not likely written by an apostle. One, we know the apostles would have been uneducated, for the magnificent piece of literature that the Gospel of John is, it is extremely unlikely that it could have been written by a Palestinian peasant.

Secondly, the Gospel has clear indications that it was written by an educated, scholarly Greek believer who had some resentment issues with the Jews. Notice that John refers to them constantly as “the Jews” distinguishing Jesus and his apostles from them as though they were not Jewish.

Thirdly, the Gospel of John dates as the final gospel. John is not a synoptic gospel and presents some very striking statements that are mysteriously missing within the Matthew, Luke and Mark, especially when considering their significance to Christian theology. At times it even contradicts the synoptics (for example Jesus’ execution is incited by the resurection of Lazarus as opposed to causing havoc in the Temple)

The Gospel of John was likely composed around 100 CE. Jesus died around 30 CE. In these times, especially for peasants, the lifespan was considerably short. Lets say that John was 16 years old when he became a disciple of Christ. By the time this gospel was written he would have been between, say, 70 and 86 years old. It is unlikely he would have lived that long.

When analyzing this from a historical perspective, it is extremely unlikely that Johannine authorship was of apostolic origin. However, from a faith perspective (ie. God gave the disciples enhanced literary skills and extended life) then it is not out of the question.

 

[BillyT92679]

We’ve been too caught up in things like quelle and authorship, which is born out of a ridiculously critical examination of faith by religionists themselves. It’s ultimately silly… faith is a mystery. People like Fr. Brown and other modern scholars are not only not always accurate, they kind of serve little purpose really. It seems it is their goal to make everything seem rational and understandable, which is absurdity when dealing with faith… you don’t want fideism (which is truly a rejection of reason), but faith ultimately requires a belief in the unexplainable.

Such as the idea that a Jewish peasant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could write a poetical Gospel of high Christological understanding.

 

[JimG]

I don’t have any problem with biblical scholarship, including textual and literary analysis. Father Ramond Brown’s work is well respected and not to be easily dismissed.

Yet it often seems to me that biblical scholars, who were not there to personally observe the events in question, often make unwarranted assumptions about the authors of the gospels and what they were or were not capable of.

If John was the last to write his gospel, he had a very long time to reflect on the events he had witnessed, including those post-resurection events to which we are not privy, and the personal instructions given by Jesus to the Apostles during the time between his resurrection and ascension.

St. John also took the virgin Mary into his home, at Jesus instruction, and apparently took care of her till she died. I certainly would not underestimate his resources or his capabilities, to say nothing of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tjmiller]

“modern scholar” - an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Mr. Brown is no Bible scholar.

Real Catholics do well to steer clear of him and his modernistic tripe.

Yes, his work** is ** “easily to be dismissed”…

 

[Fidelis]

Gnosis:

There are several reasons why the Gospel of John was not likely written by an apostle. One, we know the apostles would have been uneducated, for the magnificent piece of literature that the Gospel of John is, it is extremely unlikely that it could have been written by a Palestinian peasant.

There is no direct evidence from the Gospels themselves to support this.

I can point you to any number of people with advanced degrees that are engaged in low-paying, even menial work. Traditionally, it has been suggested that John was of a priestly familiy and trained in the temple. This may be why he was so readily admitted to Jesus’ “trial” at the High Priest’s house, while Peter was kept outside (John 18:15).

People can and do employ “Ghost-writers.” Peter probably did something similar for his two letters.

Gnosis:

Secondly, the Gospel has clear indications that it was written by an educated, scholarly Greek believer who had some resentment issues with the Jews. Notice that John refers to them constantly as “the Jews” distinguishing Jesus and his apostles from them as though they were not Jewish.

This evaluation avoids the real possibility that the Apostle John and the community he was addressing might have, indeed, been experiencing conflict and friction with non-Christian Jews.

Since the early Church was made up largely of Jewish converts, calling non-Christian Jews “Jews” seems to make perfect sense.

Gnosis:

Thirdly, the Gospel of John dates as the final gospel. John is not a synoptic gospel and presents some very striking statements that are mysteriously missing within the Matthew, Luke and Mark, especially when considering their significance to Christian theology. At times it even contradicts the synoptics (for example Jesus’ execution is incited by the resurection of Lazarus as opposed to causing havoc in the Temple)

In fact, the opposition to Jesus seems to have arisen from a number of factors. That fact that John chose to highlight one factor over what the synoptics did is not a contradiction–it is complementary.

Gnosis:

The Gospel of John was likely composed around 100 CE. Jesus died around 30 CE. In these times, especially for peasants, the lifespan was considerably short. Lets say that John was 16 years old when he became a disciple of Christ. By the time this gospel was written he would have been between, say, 70 and 86 years old. It is unlikely he would have lived that long.

This is only true if one holds to a late composition date for John’s Gospel. Usually that is arrived at by ascribing to the preceding assumptions noted above. Traditionally, and as attested by the Early Church Fathers, John’s Gospel was written in the early 90’s A.D. John would have still been old, but not impossibly so.

 

[David_Zampino]

A couple of thoughts . . .

1. The Church teaches that the Canon of Scripture is the Inspired Word of God. At the end of the day, regardless of quibbles about authorship, dates, places, and audiences, it is most important that we remember this.
2. None of the Gospels name their author. Sacred Tradition teaches us, using the unique testimony of the Early Church Fathers that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were, in fact, the authors.
3. Understanding and believing that John, the beloved disciple, was the author of the Gospel bearing his name does not necessarily preclude later editing by the community which bears his name. This is not an either/or situation; it can be easily seen as a both/and.
4. The lateness of dating the Gospel is not particularly a problem. Traditionally, John lived to be a very old man, dying of natural causes in/around Ephesus after his release from his exile on the Isle of Patmos.
5. While there is much of modern Biblical scholarship which simply begs criticism, there is also much of value. There are many (an increasing number) of traditional, conservative, Catholic Biblical scholars who honor and respect the text, while still utilizing certain modern critical approaches. Criticism is a tool; it is not bad or good, in and of itself. Like any tool, it can be used or misused. But it is inappropriate to “throw the baby out with the bath-water”. Catholic Biblical fundamentalism can be just as misleading and dangerous as Protestant Biblical fundamentalism.

Just my two-cents worth . . .

Blessings,

 

[Maranatha]

David Zampino:

1. Understanding and believing that John, the beloved disciple, was the author of the Gospel bearing his name does not necessarily preclude later editing by the community which bears his name. This is not an either/or situation; it can be easily seen as a both/and.

Hi David,

I’m not so sure about this one. If you were given a text directly from an apostle, would you feel free to change it?

 

[David_Zampino]

Maranatha:

Hi David,

I’m not so sure about this one. If you were given a text directly from an apostle, would you feel free to change it?

I understand what you are saying . . . but I think you’re missing the point. The way we would edit a text in the 21st century is not necessarily the way a 1st or 2nd century person might edit a text – and this has nothing to do with inspiration or canonization, etc. We know that Paul wrote at least some of his letters through secretaries; we have much of Paul’s own words through the mouth of Luke; it was common practice for a disciple of a great teacher to write in that great teacher’s name (especially with apocalyptic literature) etc.

I see no attempt to deceive . . . it’s just that the editing and transmission of texts worked differently back then.

For the record, lest anyone accuse me of heresy

I DO believe that John, the beloved disciple wrote the Gospel bearing his name. I also believe that the prologue and possibly the second ending of the Gospel were possibly added by John’s disciples/students summarizing their master’s thoughts and teachings.

Blessings,

 

[Fidelis]

3) Understanding and believing that John, the beloved disciple, was the author of the Gospel bearing his name does not necessarily preclude later editing by the community which bears his name. This is not an either/or situation; it can be easily seen as a both/and.

This is OK in theory, but where the all-too-often abuse of this comes in is where you have modernistic “scholars” smugly aver that this later editing includes inserting anything supernatural or prophetic, “proving” that it was written later since, of course, miracles and the supernatural should be suspected outright.

 

[David_Zampino]

Fidelis:

This is OK in theory, but where the all-too-often abuse of this comes in is where you have modernistic “scholars” smugly aver that this later editing includes inserting anything supernatural or prophetic, “proving” that it was written later since, of course, miracles and the supernatural should be suspected outright.

Agreed. But again, one cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

Blessings,

 

[Fidelis]

David Zampino:

Agreed. But again, one cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

Blessings,

Agreed! Historical criticism has provided a lot of good insights. It’s the “hermenuetic of suspicion” baby that needs to be thrown out.